maybe if we offer him more money and fewer years he'll consider it? something like 3/39 which is what Furcal got. Hmmm, the more i think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that it's probably better to focus on getting a starter than signing Hudson. Chances are someone will give him a 5-year deal and he hasn't exactly been shy about saying he wants to play for the Mets, so I hope Shapiro won't force the issue just to sign a guy (and I'm sure he won't -- he doesn't strike me as a GM who freaks out pretty quickly).

Indians will never get anyone of value in FA. There is no value for a team like the Indians to spend 5/50 on a 2B like hudson. None. We have to maximize dollard, which means the trade market is out best chance to improve.

what is with the love for Beltre? I know he's a very solid player, but he's hardly all star caliber.

For comparison's sake:

Beltre OPS+:

2006: 1052007: 1122008: 109

Blake OPS+:

2006: 1142007: 1012008: 110

Given that Beltre is younger and certainly alot better with the glove, he's more desirable to have on the team, but offensively it's barely an upgrade. Overall, he's a better player, however he really has some drawbacks, so I definately wouldn't give up a whole lot to get him. Btw, isn't he in the last year of his contract?

The difference there is, Beltre put up those numbers mostly from the middle of the Seattle lineup, while Blake hit at or near the bottom for most of the last few years with Cleveland, with the exception of course of him playing a bit in the 2 and 5 hole breifly.

it is beltres last year and he seemed to play better last year before Seattle turned into a terrible place to play. I think a change of scenery combined with contract year would make him ideal for next year then let him walk and get the draft picks for him and I dont think he would be hugely expensive I think a spec and one of our many 4/5 SP.

jellis wrote:it is beltres last year and he seemed to play better last year before Seattle turned into a terrible place to play. I think a change of scenery combined with contract year would make him ideal for next year then let him walk and get the draft picks for him and I dont think he would be hugely expensive I think a spec and one of our many 4/5 SP.

well if it would cost us Hodges and Sowers/Lewis then I'd do it in a heartbeat, but I'm not sure if that's enough.

Beltre is a very good defensive 3B, and he is a solid offensive performer. He has proven in years past in a contract year that he becomes an excellent offensive performer. I'd take a shot on him for the one year.

Consigliere wrote:Indians will never get anyone of value in FA. There is no value for a team like the Indians to spend 5/50 on a 2B like hudson. None. We have to maximize dollard, which means the trade market is out best chance to improve.

TL old friend, never say never! I agree that Hudson is an unlikely candidate but he has been linked with the Tribe in a number of periodicals/blogs which are unrelated. And I don't think it is a coincidence that the 40th spot is left open. I think it is for a FA just like it was last year. Yes I am aware that the M boys are all easily cuttable but I suspect that some may yet play a part in the offseason. I don't think 5/50 is in the tribe budget but it might also be wrong to assume there is a big market for Hudson at the rich teams. Given Shapiro's comments on the IF, it might be wrong to assume he will not spend money to fix his biggest problem. Just my thought!

Consigliere wrote:Indians will never get anyone of value in FA. There is no value for a team like the Indians to spend 5/50 on a 2B like hudson. None. We have to maximize dollard, which means the trade market is out best chance to improve.

TL old friend, never say never! I agree that Hudson is an unlikely candidate but he has been linked with the Tribe in a number of periodicals/blogs which are unrelated. And I don't think it is a coincidence that the 40th spot is left open. I think it is for a FA just like it was last year. Yes I am aware that the M boys are all easily cuttable but I suspect that some may yet play a part in the offseason. I don't think 5/50 is in the tribe budget but it might also be wrong to assume there is a big market for Hudson at the rich teams. Given Shapiro's comments on the IF, it might be wrong to assume he will not spend money to fix his biggest problem. Just my thought!

if they give Hudson over 10 mil a year I will be pissed, I expect them to use the money to sign a bullpen arm and then one bat from the lesser tier

JP_Frost wrote:what is with the love for Beltre? I know he's a very solid player, but he's hardly all star caliber.

For comparison's sake:

Beltre OPS+:

2006: 1052007: 1122008: 109

Blake OPS+:

2006: 1142007: 1012008: 110

Given that Beltre is younger and certainly alot better with the glove, he's more desirable to have on the team, but offensively it's barely an upgrade. Overall, he's a better player, however he really has some drawbacks, so I definately wouldn't give up a whole lot to get him. Btw, isn't he in the last year of his contract?

Not disagreeing with that, but he still has one heck of an arm. Wouldn't give up a lot for him, but if you could steal him from the M's (which may be doable since he's gonna make around $7M next year), he'd be a good 1 year gamble (free agent after 2009). If he can come close to his 2007 season he'd give the Tribe a front 3 that would rival any in the league with Lee, Carmona, and him.

It has its risk....but so does a Garcia or Penny (or Milwood in 2005).....but the type of risk the Tribe may have to take......

Hermie13 wrote:Not disagreeing with that, but he still has one heck of an arm. Wouldn't give up a lot for him, but if you could steal him from the M's (which may be doable since he's gonna make around $7M next year), he'd be a good 1 year gamble (free agent after 2009). If he can come close to his 2007 season he'd give the Tribe a front 3 that would rival any in the league with Lee, Carmona, and him.

It has its risk....but so does a Garcia or Penny (or Milwood in 2005).....but the type of risk the Tribe may have to take......

I just doubt they will sell cheap they can afford his salary and its hard to give up a guy after they paid a huge price for him. I think Bedard would be be expensive just because they would rather eat 7 mil then give up little for a guy they gave a ton for.

I think Beltre you get since he can be cheaper and is the biggest need

Beltre will only be cheap if the Tribe eats his salary, or at the very least pays most of it. He's an above-average 3rd baseman in the last year of his contract. That could work to the advantage of teams wanting to trade for him, because he can potentially erupt like he did in 04, but it could also mean that the M's want to wait till midseason before dealing him.

Like I said, if it costs us Hodges and an extra piece (one of the lefties not named Laffey or Huff, or one of our 4th outfielders) then I'd do the deal.

JP_Frost wrote:Beltre will only be cheap if the Tribe eats his salary, or at the very least pays most of it. He's an above-average 3rd baseman in the last year of his contract. That could work to the advantage of teams wanting to trade for him, because he can potentially erupt like he did in 04, but it could also mean that the M's want to wait till midseason before dealing him.

Like I said, if it costs us Hodges and an extra piece (one of the lefties not named Laffey or Huff, or one of our 4th outfielders) then I'd do the deal.

I think it would cost less than that at this point with sea in a full rebuild as long as we took on 8-10 mil of his salary

JP_Frost wrote:Beltre will only be cheap if the Tribe eats his salary, or at the very least pays most of it. He's an above-average 3rd baseman in the last year of his contract. That could work to the advantage of teams wanting to trade for him, because he can potentially erupt like he did in 04, but it could also mean that the M's want to wait till midseason before dealing him.

Like I said, if it costs us Hodges and an extra piece (one of the lefties not named Laffey or Huff, or one of our 4th outfielders) then I'd do the deal.

I think it would cost less than that at this point with sea in a full rebuild as long as we took on 8-10 mil of his salary

This is a tough one for me because the 3B market has come down to Beltre, Atkins and Crede IMO. I want to keep Hodges because I believe his ceiling is better than most of you. I think it is possible to take on one year of Beltre if you can work in Dellucci along with a LH starter and a prospect. I would look elsewhere for a starter, probably at Randy Johnson. I know he is 45 but he can still bring it and there isn't a tougher competitor in the game. I think I would take the risk on Crede's health and hope Hodges progresses rather than Atkins who just does not excite me but looks superior to other options. I think I would prefer Beltre to Hudson because Beltre is solid offensively and defensively. You can offer him arb and get two draft choices and explore your options next year whether it be Peralta or Hodges.

Yeah we'll have to take on all of his salary (or part with a few top prospects and through in Looch).

$12M isn't that much (to some teams), especially for one year. The M's don't 'need' to dump payroll. It definately would make sense as they aren't gonna compete for a few years, but they can go into next year with Bedard and Beltre. They both leave after 2009 and that saves them nearly $20M right there.

I just don't get this infatiuation with Joe Crede.... when healthy he's a good defensive 3Bman, but he's rarely healthy.

That's not what I have a problem with though.... what bothers me is the fact that he is just a very below average hitter. Outside of a good 2006, what has he done of any note offensively?

Granted, he seems to hit 20+ HR in a full season, but his OPS numbers are terrible, he K's more than twice as much as he walks (career high is 34BB in a season) and is a career .257/.306/.447/.753 hitter that is likely to cost you $10m (even if you can get a 1-year, establish he's healthy kind of deal).

Jesus, Hermie, spend a little more time in class and a little less time here.

The through and throw was bad. The definintely mistake was just a typo.

ha, who here is actually still in school?

And if you want to get technical, there's shouldn't be a comma after Hermie in that sentence. 'spend a little more time in class and a little less time here' doesn't have a subject; therefore, there's no need for the comma. The way you wrote the sentence Jesus is the subject.....or maybe you were referring to Jesus spending more time in school, lol

Last edited by Hermie13 on Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Beltre had a 134 OPS+ on the road in 08 (113 and 127 the 2 prior years). If he is no longer playing half his games in Sea where he had a 82 OPS+ then his OPS+ should be higher than his overall 109 OPS+ if he doesn't move to another pitchers park.

Beltre's splits were worse than the park factor. For some reason he does worse in Sea than other players.

I'm so torn on Beltre....$12M is around half the max of what we can really spend this winter, and we still need a starter and bullpen/closer help. If we were able to pull off a deal for Sonnanstine of the Rays that would help as he's still not arbitration eligible (Choo and Stevens should do it). Then throw $5M at Hoffman or around $7M at Shouse and Cruz.....

Would be a solid off-season and fill all our needs.

Weren't the M's asking for one of the Twins starters for Beltre during the season? Laffey or Huff aren't as highly touted/good as those....but if we threw in a prospect it could possibly work......

The problem is, I think the M's will want some value in return and, as much as most of us think that the time is now for Shapiro to start dealing away some prospects, I don't see him doing it just for 1 year of a player.

Hell, if all they wanted was Sowers (pure hypothetical on my part) I'd do it straight away though!

I think the Indians have to go after Hudson, but I don't see 5/50, it just won't happen because its 5 years, maybe the Indians can work out a 3 yr + option for a 4th with a higher avg salary and maybe that will work.

Why do you think the Tribe has to go after Hudson? I just don't see his skills being worth $10+M a year. He's declining defensively (which was one of his best attributes). He does have a nice OBP.....but I'd explore other options first. Especially considering all the suitors for Hudson....

I think the Indians need an outside spark to the team, a legit out of town player to come in and be a guy the team can lean on, his defense hasn't exactly diminished a lot, yeah he got hurt last year, but as far as I know he is recovering and will be ready for ST, and before this year he had won 3 gold gloves in a row.

Other options aren't much, who Grudzielanek? Durham? Eckstein? Those are really the only top FAs out there with a recent amount of success. Now maybe there is a trade that can be hatched, Uggla is known to be out there, but his defense isnt exactly great, maybe Lopez from Seattle, but doubtful.

I've been reamed for this, but I'd take Castillo at 3yr/$18M over Hudson at 4yr/$40+M. Castillo won 3 gold gloves too. Both guys are in their early 30s and losing a step, but the difference is Castillo at least provides speed still. Hudson doesn't steal bases. He plays good but not great defense and gets on base. Castillo does that plus can steal you a base. Yeah, Hudson's OPS is much, much higher than Castillo's, but you're not signing Hudson for his slugging abilities. Yeah he may get you 10 HRs, but I'd take the cheaper player with more speed.....

Don't see either player having any real shot at coming to Cleveland though (especially Castillo).

Yeah I think Castillo would be a good pick-up for us too, problem is were dealing with the NY Mets, and he is promising to come to camp in better shape than last year and has seem to have won the support back from Minaya. For the right price I am sure that could change, but yeah likely doubtful.

Really if the Indians can't go get a good 2B or 3B, I say they just let it become an internal battle and go spend the money on pitching, which I think is more important at this time.

3B: Marte vs. Hodges2B: Barfield vs. Carroll

Then whoever is deemed the better player out of the two battles, you fit Peralta and ACab accordingly. Also they could bring in NRI guys to make it interesting and give another guy a look, I said Jayson Nix when the Rockies released him, but the White Sox plucked him up rather quickly.

Hermie13 wrote:I've been reamed for this, but I'd take Castillo at 3yr/$18M over Hudson at 4yr/$40+M. Castillo won 3 gold gloves too. Both guys are in their early 30s and losing a step, but the difference is Castillo at least provides speed still. Hudson doesn't steal bases. He plays good but not great defense and gets on base. Castillo does that plus can steal you a base. Yeah, Hudson's OPS is much, much higher than Castillo's, but you're not signing Hudson for his slugging abilities. Yeah he may get you 10 HRs, but I'd take the cheaper player with more speed.....

Don't see either player having any real shot at coming to Cleveland though (especially Castillo).

At least now you can take solace in the fact that you have someone to commiserate with who has the same lame unimformed, logic defying ideas of player skills that you do, hermie. This ought to come as a welcome respite from those posters who have a clue that criticize you unmercilessly. You now have a partner! Good luck on your efforts!

I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize people on a message board that is here for discussing ideas about a team that for most of us have grown up loving. If you don't agree with what people are saying, then counter-argue and bring something to the discussion rather than a lame remark.

indianinkslinger wrote:At least now you can take solace in the fact that you have someone to commiserate with who has the same lame unimformed, logic defying ideas of player skills that you do, hermie. This ought to come as a welcome respite from those posters who have a clue that criticize you unmercilessly. You now have a partner! Good luck on your efforts!

ha, right. Because you've brought sooo much to all these conversations. And what am I uninformed about? Was pretty informed on Castillo's defensive turnaround after the injury. Pretty informed on Hudson's drop in defensive ability. Pretty informed on their similar OBP numbers.

In fact, it appears you are the one that is ill informed. You tell me I get players fielding abilities wrong, yet you say Hodges is better than Uggla defensively and want Atkins. Atkins was one of the 5 worst defensive 3Bs in the league (had the SAME +/- as Cantu in fact!!), and Hodges may yet have to be moved from 3B because of his defense. I'm all for Hodges, but getting on me then saying you want Hodges is very hypocritical.

I do agree, if you could get Hudson for 4/38 I'd take him....but don't see it dropping that much. I'd rather go after O-Cabrera for 3/28 to 3/30 or even splurge on Furcal.

indianinkslinger wrote:At least now you can take solace in the fact that you have someone to commiserate with who has the same lame unimformed, logic defying ideas of player skills that you do, hermie. This ought to come as a welcome respite from those posters who have a clue that criticize you unmercilessly. You now have a partner! Good luck on your efforts!

ha, right. Because you've brought sooo much to all these conversations. And what am I uninformed about? Was pretty informed on Castillo's defensive turnaround after the injury. Pretty informed on Hudson's drop in defensive ability. Pretty informed on their similar OBP numbers.

In fact, it appears you are the one that is ill informed. You tell me I get players fielding abilities wrong, yet you say Hodges is better than Uggla defensively and want Atkins. Atkins was one of the 5 worst defensive 3Bs in the league (had the SAME +/- as Cantu in fact!!), and Hodges may yet have to be moved from 3B because of his defense. I'm all for Hodges, but getting on me then saying you want Hodges is very hypocritical.

I do agree, if you could get Hudson for 4/38 I'd take him....but don't see it dropping that much. I'd rather go after O-Cabrera for 3/28 to 3/30 or even splurge on Furcal.

Hermie, I am filled with Thanksgiving charity. Since I have things to do for the big day, I am going to give you a do over. You can re-write or leave it the way it is. This is a one time shot. Do not expect this charitability about your inane ramblings in the future. Good luck!

carnegie44115 wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize people on a message board that is here for discussing ideas about a team that for most of us have grown up loving. If you don't agree with what people are saying, then counter-argue and bring something to the discussion rather than a lame remark.

Apparently the lame remark went over your head. I have made numerous comments in this discussion and I find little point in providing any serious arguement to a posting that is so ludicrous that is does not merit discussion which is my point. If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. BTW, I have watched the Indians win a world series so maybe I object to newbies throwing out poorly thought out ideas to hear themselves talk.

carnegie44115 wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize people on a message board that is here for discussing ideas about a team that for most of us have grown up loving. If you don't agree with what people are saying, then counter-argue and bring something to the discussion rather than a lame remark.

Apparently the lame remark went over your head. I have made numerous comments in this discussion and I find little point in providing any serious arguement to a posting that is so ludicrous that is does not merit discussion which is my point. If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. BTW, I have watched the Indians win a world series so maybe I object to newbies throwing out poorly thought out ideas to hear themselves talk.

What I fail to see is what you think is so ludicrous about points I am making which are things that are points that have been said by other people or make sense for a small market team like the Indians. The Indians have to be more creative when trying to sign premier players or being more cost-effective with their budgets, the players don't exactly have the same allegiance to teams like they did in 1948, so they cost more money. I am not here to merely write something to hear myself, you don't like what I write, then get over it.

carnegie44115 wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize people on a message board that is here for discussing ideas about a team that for most of us have grown up loving. If you don't agree with what people are saying, then counter-argue and bring something to the discussion rather than a lame remark.

Apparently the lame remark went over your head. I have made numerous comments in this discussion and I find little point in providing any serious arguement to a posting that is so ludicrous that is does not merit discussion which is my point. If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. BTW, I have watched the Indians win a world series so maybe I object to newbies throwing out poorly thought out ideas to hear themselves talk.

What I fail to see is what you think is so ludicrous about points I am making which are things that are points that have been said by other people or make sense for a small market team like the Indians. The Indians have to be more creative when trying to sign premier players or being more cost-effective with their budgets, the players don't exactly have the same allegiance to teams like they did in 1948, so they cost more money. I am not here to merely write something to hear myself, you don't like what I write, then get over it.

I think the point is Castillo is ludicrous he makes a 6 mil a year till hes 37 and 2B do not age well there is a difference between being creative and just not being realistic cause a guy played well 3 years ago when he was not in his mid 30's is not a good option. He hasnt been healthy and he hit 240 and was worse in VORP value then a Carroll, this team would be better off with Carroll then Castillo.

carnegie44115 wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need to criticize people on a message board that is here for discussing ideas about a team that for most of us have grown up loving. If you don't agree with what people are saying, then counter-argue and bring something to the discussion rather than a lame remark.

Apparently the lame remark went over your head. I have made numerous comments in this discussion and I find little point in providing any serious arguement to a posting that is so ludicrous that is does not merit discussion which is my point. If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. BTW, I have watched the Indians win a world series so maybe I object to newbies throwing out poorly thought out ideas to hear themselves talk.

What I fail to see is what you think is so ludicrous about points I am making which are things that are points that have been said by other people or make sense for a small market team like the Indians. The Indians have to be more creative when trying to sign premier players or being more cost-effective with their budgets, the players don't exactly have the same allegiance to teams like they did in 1948, so they cost more money. I am not here to merely write something to hear myself, you don't like what I write, then get over it.

I think the point is Castillo is ludicrous he makes a 6 mil a year till hes 37 and 2B do not age well there is a difference between being creative and just not being realistic cause a guy played well 3 years ago when he was not in his mid 30's is not a good option. He hasnt been healthy and he hit 240 and was worse in VORP value then a Carroll, this team would be better off with Carroll then Castillo.

Ok from the Indians perspective of having budget restraints I thought getting a decent 2B for his career except for last year at 6 mil per year would be a better idea instead of 10 or 12 mil per year for Hudson. Also since he was hurt last year, we could possibily be low because you are dealing with the Mets, like I said earlier. Also about the age factor, I believe the Indians would have him for three years for 18 mil, that means he would turn 36 in Sept of the final year in his contract. So at worst we would have a 2B at 35 for most of that final year. This was also the first year he played under 122 games since 1998.